Diaries

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I went into this wallpaper week with two main ideas (one to come later if I can get it done tonight). This one is pretty obvious - Michigan State loves them some "chip on the shoulder." Grumpy Mark always seems to find a way to feel disrespected and this wallpaper celebrates the Spartans' favorite snack. As always, I welcome constructive criticism and/or wallpaper ideas. Let me know what you think. I hope you all like this one. I'll finish the mobile version tonight and edit the post. Go Blue! Beat State!

EDIT: Fixed to EDT from EST, added iPhone/Mobile version.

EDIT II: This was my second idea. It's so perfectly set up. With the official "future" date only 4 days removed from the game, I went with this. Additionally, Oct. 12, 1985 was a 31 - 0 shutout of MSU with Harbaugh at the helm. Those dates are reflected in the time-circuits details. I'm happy with how it turned out. I first had this idea a while back and made the following:

That was just the beginning...I knew I wanted to do more. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED CLEANED UP FILES FOR GAMEDAY POSTERS. I WILL OBLIGE.

We are halfway through #HateWeek, and I think it's time for some wallpaper.

The Michigan State game has always been a special one for me. I've lived in Lansing my entire life, but I've always been a Michigan fan. Many of my friends and family members are Spartans, which makes this game very important to me. I'm ready for things to get back to normal.

My inspiration for this wallpaper is obviousy Jim Harbaugh and his love for whole milk. If winners drink whole milk, then losers drink skim. Michigan State may be a dairy school, but we win this milk battle.

Now that nearly everyone has half of their schedule behind them, this is a good time to go back and take a look at the updated scorecards for some summary statistics in our beloved conference.

Like last time, our first one will have passing, rushing and scoring offense and defense. After six games, here is how the conference shakes out:

The one thing I know most of you will zoom towards immediately are Michigan’s defensive numbers, all of which are firmly in the “green” and in each case, the best average in that category in the conference.

Looking at Michigan State, as it is that week, you can see that things aren’t what they used to be on defense in East Lansing. To see them giving up more than 100 yards on the ground on average per game is something I don’t think we’ve seen in a while. Indeed, that rushing defense is about in the middle of the conference, but then again, it isn’t Purdue or Maryland in that regard.

On offense, Michigan is what you might think right now – a bit below average in passing offense, a bit above the bar on rushing offense, and not at all surprisingly, about in the middle for scoring offense. Of course, the need to score a ton of points may not be urgent when you’re shutting down offenses, but scoring a goodly number of them is preferred all the same. Football can be funny that way.

Here are the current averages for kickoff and punt returns and coverage (again, you’re basically looking at average net here, so touchbacks do affect some of the numbers):

There is rather a lot of compression here, so it stands that, like the last time we saw these cards, this is a good punting conference. As for punt returns, the lesson is immediately apparent – DO NOT punt to Will Likely. On kickoff coverage, you can also see plenty of teams doing rather well on special teams, and then of course Michigan on kick returns, primarily thanks to one kick return in particular, is way ahead of everyone else at the moment.

Here are first and third down differentials:

Once again, aren’t you thankful that you are not Purdue or Maryland? Interestingly, they are the only teams where both differentials are in negative territory. Penn State breaks even on first downs and is slightly negative on their third down conversion differential. By contrast, there is of course Michigan, which is second in first down differential and first in third down conversion differential. When you’re forcing three and outs and controlling the ball for what seems like hours on end, it’s fairly easy to do that, I would think. Michigan State’s numbers in this respect are a bit un-MSU-like as well, so we’ll see if that holds on Saturday too.

With our recent success, there has been a lot of skepticism from opposing fan bases about how good our team actually is. While they admit we have been impressive, they say that we haven't played any good teams yet and cite our opponent's offensive and defensive stats as proof. I wanted to look into this further, so that's what this diary is.

To start, I wanted to put together a table showing the national ranks of the opponents we've played in some key overall stats.

The total defense/offense stats are in YPG and the scoring stats are in PPG

Team

Total Defense

National Rank

Scoring Defense

National Rank

Total Offense

National Rank

Scoring Offense

National Rank

Utah

392

66

19.8

33

401.8

70

37

25

Oregon State

393.6

67

29.8

89

320.4

119

19.8

116

UNLV

421.5

96

26.8

73

382.5

86

28.3

74

BYU

400.7

78

26.3

71

408.2

63

27.7

79

Maryland

457.7

110

34.7

103

341.3

109

24.3

98

Northwestern

269.5

9

12.2

8

353.8

98

21.2

110

This next table shows these same stats for our opponents with the totals from each team's Michigan game removed.

Team

Total Defense

National Rank

Scoring Defense

National Rank

Total Offense

National Rank

Scoring Offense

National Rank

Utah

399.4

77

20.4

38

414.8

55

39.6

14

Oregon State

391.3

66

28.8

84

356.9

98

22.4

106

UNLV

430.4

102

26.6

72

412

59

32.6

44

BYU

391.2

66

25.4

65

468.8

23

33.2

43

Maryland

473.6

111

36

111

388.6

79

29.2

69

Northwestern

246.4

3

7.64

3

391

77

25.4

90

Read this table as follows: If the national rank of a team decreased with Michigan's game removed, than Michigan underperformed against this team in that stat. The opposite goes for a national rank increasing.

For example: Utah's Total Defense rank fell from 66 to 77 without the Michigan game stats in there. This means that Michigan's offense had less than 392 yards of offense against Utah. The same logic follows for all stats.

The third and final table shows the differences between Michigan's totals against these teams and their averages with the Michigan game removed.

Team

Total Defense

Scoring Defense

Total Offense

Scoring Offense

Utah

-44.4

-3.4

77.8

15.6

Oregon State

13.7

6.2

218.9

15.4

UNLV

-53.4

1.4

177

25.6

BYU

56.8

5.6

363.8

33.2

Maryland

-95.6

-8

283.6

29.2

Northwestern

133.6

30.36

223

25.4

Average

1.78

5.36

224

24.1

Read this table as follows: If there's a negative sign in front of the number, it means Michigan performed that much below average against a team in that categorie. The same logic follows for the positive numbers.

For example: In the Utah game, Michigan has a -44.4 for total defense. That means Michigan gained 44.4 yards less than Utah's defense gives up a game on average.

The average total shows how much Michigan out performs or under performs in a categorie each game. So according to this table, Michigan will gain 1.78 yards more a game than the opposing defense normally gives up. So if a team normally gives up 300 yards a game, you can expect Michigan to gain 301.78 yards.

Similarly, Michigan will score 5.36 more points a game than the opposing defense allows, allow 224 yards less than what the opposing team normally gains, and allow 24.1 points less than what the opposing team normally scores.

If I had more time/motivation, I could put more time into the analysis of these stats. Instead of doing a raw average total in the last table, I would much rather see the percent difference between Michigan yards gained and average yards allowed by a team, etc. So there is some more analysis that can be done and some stuff that's left to be desired, but it does paint the general picture pretty well.

The reason I did this is because I think this paints a better picture of how good a team is. If a team averages 500 YPG that looks great in terms of stats, but to me a team that averages 400 YPG while playing defenses that allow 300 YPG is a better offense than one that averages 500 YPG while playing teams that allow 475 YPG. An average offense isn't one that is ranked 65/130 in YPG, but one that gains as many yards against a team as that team normally lets up.

So that being said, the results in the third table above show pretty much what we expected. Michigan has an average to slightly above average offense. Michigan will gain as many yards as their opponent normally allows. The scoring stats are higher than you might expect as we score almost 5.5 more points a game than our opponents allow, but some of that comes from our non offensive scores against NW. Similarly, because of our great special teams and defense we generally have good field position, increasing our point output while decreasing our yard output.

Defensively however, we are great. Teams gain 224 less yards agains us than they normally average, and 24.1 points less per a game. That's incredible. This is a great defense, arguably the best in the country, and the stats back it up in any scenario.

I went back to the clip I used as part of the utterly one-sided parkinggod highlight reel. Chesson catches the ball and starts moving forward at 0:01.15 (my clip is at 30fps, so that's the one-and-a-half second mark). He crosses the goal line at 0:14.00 (this is probably not how video editing professionals indicate time, but I only learned enough video editing to mix utterly one-sided highlight reels. But I digress), so his total time is 12 seconds and 15 frames, or 12 1/2 seconds.

Obviously, to determine how fast he is, we need to know how far he went. Fortunately, we can make a pretty good approximation by assuming that he ran a straight line from where he caught the ball at the 4 to where he turned the corner at the 35 (he didn't, really; he moved more forward at first to set up his blocks), then a straight line from there to the goal line.

The numbers are two yards tall, and the top of the number is three yards in from the sideline (according to http://www.trumarkathletics.com/football-field-layout-dimensions.aspx). Chesson caught the ball almost exactly in the middle of the number, so he's 8 yards in from the sideline. When he turns the corner at the 35, he is also around the middle of the number, so he's 8 yards in from the sideline there as well. The field is 53 1/3 yards wide, so his lateral distance travelled is (53 1/3 - 8 - 8) 37 1/3 yards. His downfield distance travelled is (35 - 4) 31 yards, so we can solve for the distance he ran, which is just the hypotenuse of that right triangle: sqrt((31 * 31) + (37 1/3 * 37 1/3)) ~= 48.5yd.

Add the 65 yards from there to the goal line (he drifts another couple of yards towards the sideline as he went, but that's probably lost in the noise of all the other assumptions I made) and his total distance is 113.5 yards in 12.5 seconds, or an 'equivalent' 100m time of 12.05 seconds. Caveats about wearing pads/helmet/cleats and carrying a football all apply.

I'm back with a post-ANNIHILATION edition of these here power rankings. Those of you who like it when your fandom is validated by systems with numbers will undoubtedly enjoy this edition more than the last two, as I did. But more on that later...

First, a note on methodology. I won't rehash how this system works, but rather refer you to the explanation given last week. One note: I decided to implement the +/-0.5 weight for conference games. These are Big 10 power rankings, after all, so it didn't make sense to count Stanford and Michigan as equals in Northwestern's score. Here's how adding that bonus affected last week's standings:

Northwestern: 6.0

Iowa: 5.0

Ohio State 3.0

Michigan: 2.5

Michigan State: 1.5

Illinois: 1.0

Minnesota: 0.5

(tie) Wisconsin: -2.0

(tie) Penn State: -2.0

Indiana: -2.5

Maryland: -3.0

Nebraska: -4.5

(tie) Purdue: -5.0

(tie) Rutgers: -5.0

(So that MSU/Minnesota tie that made everyone feel icky? Not an issue anymore.)

Also note: in the interests of consistency, this will be the last methodological change implemented this season. Further suggestions will be considered in the offseason.

Post-Week 6 Rankings

1. Michigan (5-1 (2-0), AP #11): 6.5

(+ 3) As in most other systems that deliberately ignore preseason assumptions, this one now recognizes Michigan as the most accomplished Big 10 team. The Wolverines neither benefit from nor are penalized by any rescoring this week, outside the 0.5 conference win bonus now awarded for beating Maryland. But that win over Northwestern, which was ranked #17 in F+, is the single most valuable win by any Big 10 team so far this season (3.5). And what a win it was! Let's bask in its glory for a moment, and eagerly await Saturday's opportunity to add another.

2. Northwestern (5-1 (1-1), AP #20): 5.5

(-1) The good news for the Wildcats is that the 38-0 loss to Michigan doesn’t count against them (due to Michigan being classified as "good"), and thanks to previous, highly-scored victories over Stanford and Duke, they remain in second place. Besides, Northwestern isn’t out of the race for the Big 10 West, though—far from it. Though Iowa has the easier path, the ‘Cats have a chance to stake their claim when the two go head-to-head in Evanston next week. Lose, though, and it will be hard for Northwestern to recover.

3. Iowa (6-0/2-0, AP #17): 5.0

(-1) Iowa has impressed so far—with 4/6 of its wins scoring positively (and only the win over Illinois State producing a penalty). This might even be Kirk Ferentz’s best team since 2009, when they finished 11-2, won the Orange Bowl and ended the season ranked #7. But Iowa also has been gifted with an incredibly easy conference schedule. That won’t do many favors in these here power rankings, but after playing Northwestern next week, which looks like a tossup game right now, there aren't many bumps left in the road. A win on Saturday and it should be smooth sailing to the Big 10 title game.

4. Ohio State (6-0 (2-0), AP #1): 4.5

(-1) Last week's win against Maryland was at least less unimpressive, right? Right. But something's still wrong with the Buckeyes, and no one's quite sure what that is. an Interestingly, most observers see the previous week's close win over Indiana as indicative of Ohio State’s perplexing, yet lingering malaise. I tend to agree, but it actually helps the Buckeyes according to the rules of this system, as gave Indiana a boost in F+ (and thus leads to their reclassification as “solid,” which 1.0 points to the baseline and eliminates a 0.5 MoV penalty. Still, they'll need a quality win to boost their position here, and the weak schedule doesn't really offer that opportunity until the last two weeks (when they play MSU and Michigan back-to-back).

5. Michigan State (6-0 (2-0), AP #7): 3.5

(=) Another week, another near-loss against an inferior opponent—this time 31-24 over lowly Rutgers. I know there have been a lot of injuries, especially on the OL, but really it’s the defense that looks out of whack. And given how well Pitt has been playing, this *might* imply that Narduzzi was Fukunaga to Dantonio’s Pizzolato (albeit with a better working relationship). Take the former out of the equation, and you’re left with the True Detective: Season Two of Big 10 defenses. (For those paying close attention to the scores: this week the Spartans benefit from Central Michigan moving up from “not good” to “solid” last week. That adds 1.0 points to the baseline score and eliminates a -0.5 MoV penalty for a total swing of 1.5, which is a lot at this early stage.)

6. Wisconsin (4-2 (1-1), NR): 1.0

(+2) The Badgers scored 0.0 from their non-conference schedule, which was three cupcakes plus Alabama. Then the home loss against Iowa deducts a point, while the win at Nebraska (which F+ had at #34, if you can believe that) adds two. Still very much in the hunt for the West, though at this point I’d be surprised if they actually pull it off.

7. Minnesota (4-2 (1-1), NR): 0.5

(=) Minnesota beat up a bad Purdue team. That’s good? But Colorado State has been downgraded from “solid” to “not good” (which means the small MoV negates the road win bonus). That’s bad. Still, at least Ohio is “solid.” That’s good! The frogurt is also cursed….that’s bad.

7. Illinois (4-2 (1-1), NR): 0.5

(-1)

Huh…turns out Middle Tenessee is “solid” this week, so that’s something positive.

9. Penn State (5-1 (2-0), NR): 0.0

(=) The Nittany Lions are our perfectly average team of the week, at 0.0 (having played two conference doormats negates a -1.0 MoV penalty for unconvincing wins over “not good” opponents). So I guess that’s progress for a team that looked like it might be one of the doormats itself just a couple weeks ago. The problem for PSU is that there aren’t a lot of likely wins left on the schedule—away at Maryland and home versus Illinois probably, but the rest (OSU, Northwestern, Michigan and MSU) are all playing above PSU’s pay grade right now. A 6 or 7 win season seems likely, even with 5 already in the bag. If that happens, then 2016 is a do-or-die season for James Franklin.

10. Maryland (2-4 (0-2), NR): -2.5

(+1) Despite a 2-4 (0-2) record, a 3-game losing streak and the coach getting fired, Maryland’s score is surprisingly not awful--and even helped them move up one spot. Why? Because 3/4 losses came to “good” teams (WVU, Michigan, OSU), and this system does not penalize for blowout losses to “good” teams.

11. Indiana (4-2 (0-2), NR): -3.5

(-1) Indiana demonstrates why the transitive property has limited application to college football: one week after almost upsetting AP #1 Ohio State, the Hoosiers get shellacked by Penn State. That’s like almost beating a Porsche 918 in a drag race, and then getting smoked by a Toyota Corolla.

12. Nebraska (2-4 (0-2), NR): -6.5

(=) Death by a thousand cuts.

12. Rutgers (2-3 (0-2), NR): -6.5

(+1) Getting Carroo back certainly helps, to the degree that a very fast kid with a bucket and access to a garden hose can help fight a raging warehouse fire. Also, Rutgers should get a boost next week: since opponent strength is based on last week’s F+ ranking, Washington State is still classified as “not good” (#94). That might change after WSU beat Oregon (i.e. MSU's "quality OOC win"). Look out, Nebraska!

14. Purdue (1-5 (0-2), NR): -7.5

(-1) Like Indiana, the Boilermakers took their best shot at one of the conference’s wobbly fat cats (MSU in this case)—only to get destroyed the following week by the congressman from average (losing 41-13 to Minnesota). This team is bad.

Summary Stats

Mean: 0.0 (woohoo!)

Median: 0.5

Range: 14 (-7.5 to 6.5)

Observations

This week's changes were more incremental than last time. Michigan vaulted into the top spot, Wisconsin clawed its way back into positive territory and Indiana took a dive, but otherwise things look more or less the same.

Of the games being played this Saturday, none are likely to really shake things up. Michigan or Michigan State will benefit greatly from a win, but the loser won't give up too much ground (seeing as how both are in the top 25 of F+). A PSU upset of OSU would be something, but does anyone see that happening, even considering OSU's malaise? I don't.

As far as our game goes, well, I'm fairly confident we're going to win. I know, I know--they've had our number for years. But our defense is better than their offense, and our offensive staff should be able to figure out their declining defense. But I wouldn't be shocked if we lost either--they were highly rated preseason for a reason, after all, and Dantonio is a very capable and motivated coach. Still, I'm thinking 27-17 to the good guys, or something like that. Maybe not even that close.

One final note: I'm going out of town this weekend, so I'm unlikely to do one of these next week. Might still happen, but in all likelihood I'll wait for the bye week. GO BLUE!